Live in the UK? Hope you like internet censorship!

[0dev]

The UK Internet Watch Foundation ( IWF ), which already works with most consumer broadband ISPs to block websites that contain child sexual abuse content, could soon see its "voluntary" remit extended to include internet sites that contain "violent and unlawful" content.

The proposals were outlined in the UK HomeOffice's latest anti-terrorism Prevent Strategy report, which was released earlier this week.

Source

At the same time, the entertainment industry is having another go, too:

Film-makers are going to court in a bid to block access to a site that links to pirated versions of popular movies.

In a UK legal first, the Motion Picture Association (MPA) has applied for an injunction that would force BT to cut off customers' access to Newzbin.

The MPA, the industry body for a number of movie studios, said it was targeting BT first as the largest internet service provider in the UK.

BT confirmed it would be in court later but did not make any further comment.

The MPA wants BT to block Newzbin with the same system that stops access to sites hosting child sex abuse images.

Source

Why don't they just throw Cleanfeed and the IWF into a hole and leave them there? In fact, throw the MPA, MPAA, RIA, RIAA, BPI, and all other such groups in with them. We don't need more censorship.

 

[stridemat]

Wide spread Internet blackouts do not work. Take China for an example.

Technology will progress faster that the legislators can create laws.

 

[0dev]

Wide spread Internet blackouts do not work. Take China for an example.

Technology will progress faster that the legislators can create laws.

Very true. BT even admit the Cleanfeed system is flawed in many ways and is very easy to bypass with a simple proxy site. But the fact the government is looking to expand on censoring what we can access is a scary thought nonetheless.

 

[IntelliUser]

We need to push forward a new concept "Separation between Corporation and State."
The government has no right to close website(s) to protect a corporation's financial interest.

We all know the entertainment industry is the driving force behind this.

 

[snberk103]

I'm not sure what the problem is with this, in concept at least. As long are there are judicial safeguards to limit their actions.

We already accept that the State has the right to protect corporate interests. Patent law (in theory, even if it doesn't always work in practice. But then again, what does work 100%?), trademark protections, industrial espionage protections. Heck - prosecuting for shoplifting is protecting "corporate interests".

People do not have the right to be entertained. The entertainment industry (note that it is an industry) wants to be paid for it's products. It can choose to how much and in what way it wants to be paid. If you want to be entertained, you agree to their terms. If you don't like the terms, don't be entertained. Simple as that. If enough people don't want to be entertained, like any business, the entertain industry will modify it's prices or content.

It's a business. If you like the product you pay for it. If you don't pay for it it's theft, under whatever name you want to call it. It's simple concept, really.

 

[IntelliUser]

If you don't pay for it it's theft, under whatever name you want to call it.

It's not theft if you don't deprive the owner of anything.

 

[snberk103]

Originally Posted by snberk103
If you don't pay for it it's theft, under whatever name you want to call it.

It's not theft if you don't deprive the owner of anything.

It is stealing if you take something that does not belong to you. What you want to call it is semantics.... see the bolded bit from my post - I was acknowledging that there is grey area what the term is. It's still wrong.

You are depriving the owner of revenue.

 

[0098386]

It is stealing if you take something that does not belong to you. What you want to call it is semantics.... see the bolded bit from my post - I was acknowledging that there is grey area what the term is. It's still wrong.

You are depriving the owner of revenue.

As someone who has their income affected by piracy, I can only agree. Do pirates believe that online features that require bandwidth cost nothing?
However - there are lots of people who pirate copyrighted material on this site who won't agree, yet it's the most heinous crime to not tip a waiter.

 

[IntelliUser]

It is stealing if you take something that does not belong to you.

You're not taking something that does not belong to you. You're making a copy.

You are depriving the owner of revenue.

That assumes that the owner would have otherwise gotten revenue. That is often not the case.

 

[snberk103]

As someone who has their income affected by piracy, I can only agree. Do pirates believe that online features that require bandwidth cost nothing?
However - there are lots of people who pirate copyrighted material on this site who won't agree, yet it's the most heinous crime to not tip a waiter.

Delicious irony, eh?

Link

You're not taking something that does not belong to you. You're making a copy.

You have something you didn't pay for. Call it what you want. In my world it's stealing - and I don't care much what you want to call it. You have in your possession something that you should have paid for, and didn't.

That assumes that the owner would have otherwise gotten revenue. That is often not the case.

That has nothing to do with anything. If I offer for sale a plain old pencil for $100 - and you take it without paying, it's still stealing - even if I would have never sold it at that price. And yes, I recognize that you aren't making a copy of the pencil - I'm just pointing out the fallacy of the "it wouldn't have made revenue" point.

 

[0dev]

As the old "piracy is theft you iz stealing mah ones and zeros!!!11" debate has started, I'd just like to point out that British law states: "A person shall be guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it."

If you download an unauthorised copy of a copyrighted piece of work, you're not depriving anyone else of that file, so it is not theft.

Second, even if you are against piracy, you shouldn't support censorship for any reason. It's already been expanded from its original use (to prevent paedophiles) and it will keep expanding if we don't fight it.

 

[IntelliUser]

That has nothing to do with anything. If I offer for sale a plain old pencil for $100 - and you take it without paying, it's still stealing - even if I would have never sold it at that price. And yes, I recognize that you aren't making a copy of the pencil - I'm just pointing out the fallacy of the "it wouldn't have made revenue" point.

But the two things are linked together. Your analogy isn't all that good in this context.

You're not losing any revenue if the people who pirate your products wouldn't have bought them anyway. You might even end up getting more revenue if the pirates start buying your products later in life for whatever reason.

 

[snberk103]

But the two things are linked together. Your analogy isn't all that good in this context.

You're not losing any revenue if the people who pirate your products wouldn't have bought them anyway. You might even end up getting more revenue if the pirates start buying your products later in life for whatever reason.

So you're saying it's OK to steal fruit from the corner market, because one day you might decide you like the flavour enough to start buying oranges?

Piracy means owning something you didn't pay for. Like I said earlier, rationalize it anyway you want.... money was due, and it wasn't paid - and that is stealing something in my world - I'm not interested in quibbling the dictionary definitions. If you pirate, you know you are not paying for something that should have been for.

 

[0dev]

So you're saying it's OK to steal fruit from the corner market, because one day you might decide you like the flavour enough to start buying oranges?

Piracy means owning something you didn't pay for. Like I said earlier, rationalize it anyway you want.... money was due, and it wasn't paid - and that is stealing something in my world - I'm not interested in quibbling the dictionary definitions. If you pirate, you know you are not paying for something that should have been for.

If you want to talk about the ethics of piracy, I'll tell you right now the reason I don't pay for anything from the mainstream record industry is because of ethics (note: that doesn't necessarily mean I pirate it either, I simply do not purchase it). The reasons for this are because I do not wish to give money to an industry which is obsolete and is willing to sue and censor the crap out of everything and everyone just to prolong their existence, and I also believe the artist deserves my money, not middlemen in suits.

Therefore, I support independent artists totally. 100%. Even when they offer their albums for free, I will donate them money via PayPal because they deserve it.

The RIAA's lawyers, on the other hand, do not deserve anything.

I'd like to request that the direction of this thread be moved back to censorship, though.

 

[0dev]

Also, here is a small time artist's (well, I say small time, he's actually the most famous person on YouTube) opinion on piracy.

 

[IntelliUser]

So you're saying it's OK to steal fruit from the corner market, because one day you might decide you like the flavour enough to start buying oranges?
Piracy means owning something you didn't pay for. Like I said earlier, rationalize it anyway you want.... money was due, and it wasn't paid - and that is stealing something in my world - I'm not interested in quibbling the dictionary definitions. If you pirate, you know you are not paying for something that should have been for.

Again, there is a big difference between physically taking something and making a copy of it.

Also, the initial uploader/distributor of the pirated copy HAS paid for it. I'm not taking anything I was supposed to pay for, I'm just taking a copy of something somebody else has already paid for.

If I pirate a song I wasn't gonna buy anyway, I'm not hurting anyone economically.

 

[snberk103]

...

Therefore, I support independent artists totally. 100%. Even when they offer their albums for free, I will donate them money via PayPal because they deserve it.

The RIAA's lawyers, on the other hand, do not deserve anything.

I'd like to request that the direction of this thread be moved back to censorship, though.

I'm lucky enough to live in community with lots musicians, and lots of live performances. So I get to buy CDs straight from the artist, and often signed.

I applaud your stance, and your actions.

Re: Censorship. I think we went down this road because someone complained that the State was being used to further corporate interests, including the claim of enacting censorship laws - which lead to pirating.....

Again, there is a big difference between physically taking something and making a copy of it.

Also, the initial uploader/distributor of the pirated copy HAS paid for it. I'm not taking anything I was supposed to pay for, I'm just taking a copy of something somebody else has already paid for.

If I pirate a song I wasn't gonna buy anyway, I'm not hurting anyone economically.

Interesting rationalization. I create IP, and I'd call it stealing if someone was making unpaid for copies of a photograph I'd created.

 

[IntelliUser]

Interesting rationalization. I create IP, and I'd call it stealing if someone was making unpaid for copies of a photograph I'd created.

If somebody bought one of your photographs then that particular copy is theirs. That person should be free to give away copies of his copy.
If somebody physically takes one of your photographs, or cuts/moves the file from your camera/computer to an external drive or something, then that's stealing.

 

[snberk103]

If somebody bought one of your photographs then that particular copy is theirs. That person should be free to give away copies of his copy.
If somebody physically takes one of your photographs, or cuts/moves the file from your camera/computer to an external drive or something, then that's stealing.

If someone buys one of my photographs, no - they don't have the right to make copies of it to give away or sell, unless I have also transferred those usage rights to them. This is a well established point of copyright law and contract law. Canada and the USA do things slightly differently regarding who owns the copyright (the customer who commissions the photograph, or the photographer) when there is no contract. However, it is accepted that somebody holds the copyright, and that no copies can be made of that photograph (legally) unless they are the copyright holder, or those usage rights have been spelled out.

As a customer (if you don't hold the copyright) you may give your original print to whomever you please. But you cannot make copies.

If I sell an image to a magazine, I can specify that they may use that image for only one issue. To use it only in a particular region (if they are sell distribute their magazine all over North America, for example, I can specify that for a certain $$ figure they can only publish it in Canada, and if they want to publish it in Mexico they need to pay more money).

I may not sell too many images if I put too many restrictions on the usage, but that is my legal right - and nobody should be able to steal my images because they disagree with the way I want to conduct my business.

It may be hard to enforce, but that is the legal foundation.

 

[IntelliUser]

I may not sell too many images if I put too many restrictions on the usage, but that is my legal right - and nobody should be able to steal my images because they disagree with the way I want to conduct my business.

Nobody is stealing from you if they're using copies of a legally bought copy.

It may be hard to enforce, but that is the legal foundation.

It's hard to enforce because it doesn't make much sense.

The consumer is paying for either an object or file, and therefore should have the right to do whatever they want with it as long as they don't profit.

In the end, not censoring the internet doesn't mean everybody's going to use pirated copies. People understand what happens when the producer goes broke.

A small percentage is going to keep doing that, some temporarily like teenagers or college students; others wouldn't be able to afford the products anyway; only a very small percentage for no good reason.
Producers should try to find smart ways to make their products accessible and affordable; e.g. Netflix, Hulu, music streaming etc; instead of fighting against piracy with stupid laws that achieve absolutely nothing, for pirates will always be one step ahead.

 

[0dev]

Producers should try to find smart ways to make their products accessible and affordable; e.g. Netflix, Hulu, music streaming etc; instead of fighting against piracy with stupid laws that achieve absolutely nothing, for pirates will always be one step ahead.

Precisely. The success of Spotify and YouTube prove that this kind of thinking works. But the record companies are doing too little too late, and they've now found themselves in an age where anyone with a laptop and an internet connection has the potential to become the next big thing, with or without the help of big labels.

Mark my words, give it another decade or two and the music industry as we know it will be dead. The suits will be gone, the artists will remain, and streaming sites will continue to thrive off of it. That is the future. Consumers will become producers. Everyone will have a piece of the pie. And that is what the RIAA fear the most.

 

[IntelliUser]

Precisely. The success of Spotify and YouTube prove that this kind of thinking works. But the record companies are doing too little too late, and they've now found themselves in an age where anyone with a laptop and an internet connection has the potential to become the next big thing, with or without the help of big labels.

Mark my words, give it another decade or two and the music industry as we know it will be dead. The suits will be gone, the artists will remain, and streaming sites will continue to thrive off of it. That is the future. Consumers will become producers. Everyone will have a piece of the pie. And that is what the RIAA fear the most.

I agree; I'm just afraid of how much damage they'll have done in the transitional phase.

 

[iJohnHenry]

Nobody is stealing from you if they're using copies of a legally bought copy.

You exhibit a warped sense of what is fair.

The person that purchased the media is the only one entitled to use it.

Anything else is theft, straight-up.

 

[IntelliUser]

You exhibit a warped sense of what is fair.

That's subjective.

The person that purchased the media is the only one entitled to use it.

So they shouldn't be able to lend that media to a friend?

Anything else is theft, straight-up.

Not really.

 

[Nightarchaon]

Well, if the blody entertainment industry released globaly, at a consistant price (instead of delaying releases and gouging regions like the UK) there would likely be a lot less piracy ,

It used to be that movies were released in the US on VHS or DVD a couple of months before they hit the cinemas elsewhere in the world, i remember importing my 1st DvDs from the states and watching movies that hadn't been released yet at all in the UK by up to a year.

Now its TV shows, and frankly, i don't see downloading a TV show as any different from setting my DVR to record one, downloaded i have no adverts, DVR, i skip the adverts.

Now when the Blu-Ray of the movie, or TV show box set falls in price to a sensible level, i purchase it, delete the downloaded copy and free up the space.

Unbiased Studies NOT paid for by the MPAA and other money grabbing institutions have shown that all but a tiny fraction of a % of downloaders don't ever then go buy the product, or watch the movie at the cinema, in fact, most dowloaders spend MORE money on the "real physical" goods than the average man on the street thats never downloaded anything.

I am sick of being ripped of left and right, Let me buy it day and date its released anywhere in the world, with no region lockouts or other such things, and you are more likely to get your initial asking price, Delay it, and ill download, and wait for the price to drop to around £10.

If you stopped illegal downloads tomorrow, id just wait for everything to be in the bargain bin so you'll get less money anyway.. its what i do with computer games, ive not paid more than £10 for a video game this generation of consoles, or for years on the PC, with the exception of Mass Effect 1 and 2, which i bought full price on the PC and Xbox on day of release, and Mass Effect 2 on the PS3.

At the moment im sat waiting for the Lord Of The Rings Blu Ray box to drop to £20-£25 which is what i feel its worth.. In the mean time, H.264 hobbits are on my apple TV